Davis Sewing Machine Company v. Richards & Another is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the Davis Sewing Machine Company and two of its customers, Richards and another. The Davis Sewing Machine Company had sold two sewing machines to Richards and another, and the two customers had paid for the machines in full. However, the machines were defective and did not work properly. The customers sued the Davis Sewing Machine Company for breach of warranty, claiming that the machines were not fit for the purpose for which they were sold. The Supreme Court held that the Davis Sewing Machine Company was liable for breach of warranty. The Court found that the company had made a warranty that the machines were fit for the purpose for which they were sold, and that the machines were not fit for that purpose. The Court also held that the customers were entitled to damages for the breach of warranty. The Court awarded the customers the full amount of the purchase price of the machines, plus interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Davis Sewing Machine Company was liable for breach of warranty and awarded the customers the full amount of the purchase price of the machines, plus interest.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Davis Sewing Machine Company v. Richards & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to confusion among litigants. He noted that prior cases had held that a patentee could not recover damages for infringement of his patent unless he had made an effort to protect it by bringing suit against infringers at the time they began infringing. The majority opinion in this case, however, allowed recovery without such proof of diligence on behalf of the patentee. Justice Field argued that this ruling created uncertainty as to when a plaintiff must bring suit or risk losing their right to compensation for infringement; if there is no set rule requiring prompt action from plaintiffs then defendants may be left uncertain as well about how long they can continue infringing before facing legal consequences. Furthermore, allowing recovery without proof of diligence would encourage negligence on behalf of patentees and allow them more leeway than what has been traditionally accepted under law regarding protection of patents from infringement.